UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ... - Reuters

[Pages:30]Case 3:15-md-02626-HES-LLL Document 1337 Filed 04/20/22 Page 1 of 30 PageID 55124

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

In Re:

Case No. 3:15-md-2626-HES-LLL

DISPOSABLE CONTACT LENS Judge Harvey E. Schlesinger

ANTITRUST LITIGATION

Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington

Magistrate Judge Laura L. Lambert

THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: All Class Actions

PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENTS WITH DEFENDANTS ALCON VISION, LLC AND JOHNSON & JOHNSON VISION CARE, INC. AND PROPOSED NOTICE

PLAN AND SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM OF LAW

Case 3:15-md-02626-HES-LLL Document 1337 Filed 04/20/22 Page 2 of 30 PageID 55125

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION........................................................................................1 II. STATEMENT OF THE CASE .....................................................................3

A. Allegations and Defenses.....................................................................3 B. The Earlier Settlements........................................................................4 C. Discovery Involving Alcon and JJVCI .................................................5 D. Recent Procedural Developments ........................................................5 III. MEDIATIONS .............................................................................................6 A. Alcon ..................................................................................................6 B. JJVCI ..................................................................................................6 C. Summary of Settlement Terms.............................................................6

1. The Settlement Classes ..............................................................7 2. Monetary Relief for the Benefit of the Class ...............................7 3. Class Release.............................................................................8 4. Settlement Termination .............................................................8 5. Reimbursement of Class Representatives' Costs and Time .........8 6. Attorneys' Fees and Costs..........................................................9 7. Notice and Distribution .............................................................9 IV. LEGAL STANDARD ................................................................................10 V. ARGUMENT .............................................................................................12 A. The Settlements Satisfy the Criteria for Preliminary Approval ............12 B. Both Settlements are the Product of Good-Faith, Informed, and Arm's-Length Negotiations................................................................13 C. Both Settlements Are Fair, Adequate, and Reasonable.......................15 1. Likelihood of Success at Trial ..................................................15 2. Range of Possible Recovery and the Point on or Below

the Range of Recovery at Which a Settlement Is Fair ...............16 3. Complexity, Expense, and Duration of Litigation ....................17 4. Stage of the Proceedings ..........................................................17

i

Case 3:15-md-02626-HES-LLL Document 1337 Filed 04/20/22 Page 3 of 30 PageID 55126 D. The Court Should Certify the Proposed Settlement Classes ................18 E. The Court Should Approve the Proposed Notice Plan, Which Is Substantially the Same as the Notice Plan the Court Approved for the B&L, CVI, and ABB Settlements ............................................19 F. The Court Should Set a Schedule for Notice and Final Approval of the Settlements ..................................................................................21 G. Plan of Distribution of Funds to the Settlement Classes......................22

VI. CONCLUSION ..........................................................................................23

ii

Case 3:15-md-02626-HES-LLL Document 1337 Filed 04/20/22 Page 4 of 30 PageID 55127

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page(s)

Cases

Ass'n for Disabled Americans, Inc. v. Amoco Oil Co., 211 F.R.D. 457 (S.D. Fla. 2002) .......................................................................10

Behrens v. Wometco Enters., Inc., 118 F.R.D. 534 (S.D. Fla. 1988), aff'd, 899 F.2d 21 (11th Cir. 1990) .......13, 14, 16

Bennett v. Behring Corp., 737 F.2d 982 (11th Cir. 1984) ..................................................................... 10, 11

Cotton v. Hinton, 559 F.2d 1326 (5th Cir. 1977) ................................................................10, 13, 16

Francisco v. Numismatic Guaranty Corp. of Am., No. 06-61677, 2008 WL 649124 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 31, 2008) ................................. 15

Fresco v. Auto Data Direct, Inc., No. 03-61063, 2007 WL 2330895 (S.D. Fla. May 14, 2007) .............................. 11

Greco v. Ginn Dev. Co., LLC, 635 Fed. Appx. 628 (11th Cir. 2015) .................................................................22

Holman v. Student Loan Xpress, Inc., No. 8:08-cv-305-T-23MAP, 2009 WL 4015573 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 19, 2009)..................................................................................................11

In re Amgen Inc. Sec. Litig., No. CV-07-2536, 2016 WL 10571773 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 25, 2016) ........................ 18

In re Pool Prods. Distrib. Mkt. Antitrust Litig., 310 F.R.D. 300 (E.D. La. 2015)........................................................................20

In re U.S. Oil and Gas Litig., 967 F.2d 489 (11th Cir. 1992) ...........................................................................10

Juris v. Inamed Corp., 685 F.3d 1294 (11th Cir. 2012)..........................................................................20

Legg v. Spirit Airlines, Inc., No. 15-cv-61375, 2015 WL 11197784 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 28, 2015).........................22

iii

Case 3:15-md-02626-HES-LLL Document 1337 Filed 04/20/22 Page 5 of 30 PageID 55128

Lipuma v. Am. Express Co., 406 F. Supp. 2d 1298 (S.D. Fla. 2005).............................................. 13, 15, 16, 17

Morgan v. Public Storage, 301 F. Supp. 3d 1237 (S.D. Fla. 2016)...............................................................20

Pierre?Val v. Buccaneers Ltd. P'ship, No. 8:14?cv?01182?CEH, 2015 WL 3776918 (M.D. Fla. June 17, 2015) ................................................................................................................11

Prather v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 15-cv-04231, 2017 WL 770132 (N.D. Ga. Feb. 24, 2017) .................................. 22

Smith v. Wm. Wrigley Jr. Co., No. 09-cv-60646, 2010 WL 2401149 (S.D. Fla. June 15, 2010) .................... 11, 12

Turner v. Gen. Elec. Co., No. 2:05-CV-186-FTM-99DNF8, 2006 WL 2620275 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 13, 2006)..................................................................................................13

Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

Rule 23..................................................................................................1, 2, 9, 18 Rule 23(b)(3) ......................................................................................................7 Rule 23(c)(2)(B) ................................................................................................21 Rule 23(e)................................................................................................... 10, 11 Other Authorities MANUAL FOR COMPLEX LIT., Fourth ?13.14 (4th ed. 2004) .............................................................................12 4 NEWBERG ON CLASS ACTIONS ?11.26 ............................................................................................................... 10 ?11.41 (4th ed. 2002)................................................................................... 10, 14

iv

Case 3:15-md-02626-HES-LLL Document 1337 Filed 04/20/22 Page 6 of 30 PageID 55129

Plaintiffs and Lead Counsel move for Preliminary Approval of the Settlement Agreement with Alcon Vision, LLC ("Alcon"), attached as Exhibit A ("Alcon Settlement"), and the Settlement Agreement with Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc. ("JJVCI"), attached as Exhibit B ("JJVCI Settlement")1 which will fully resolve this Action if approved by the Court.2 I. INTRODUCTION

After more than seven years of vigorously contested litigation and just days before trial, Plaintiffs reached settlements with the two remaining Defendants in this case, Alcon and JJVCI. Together with the earlier-approved settlements with CooperVision, Inc. ("CVI") ($3 million), Bausch & Lomb Inc. ("B&L") ($10 million), and ABB Optical Group, LLC ("ABB") ($30.2 million), the Alcon Settlement ($20 million) and JJVCI Settlement ($55 million), will fully and finally resolve this class action litigation upon the Court's approval.

Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court grant Preliminary Approval of the Settlements because, as set forth below, they satisfy Rule 23 and all Eleventh Circuit criteria for preliminary approval. The Settlements, which total $75 million, will provide substantial monetary relief and represent a tremendous result for Plaintiffs and

1 Alcon and JJVCI are collectively referred to herein as the "Settling Defendants," and Alcon, JJVCI, and Plaintiffs are collectively referred to as the "Parties." The Alcon Settlement and JJVCI Settlement are collectively referred to as the "Settlements." 2 All capitalized defined terms used herein have the same meanings as defined in the Settlements.

1

Case 3:15-md-02626-HES-LLL Document 1337 Filed 04/20/22 Page 7 of 30 PageID 55130

members of the Classes. See Declaration of Thomas K. Boardman, ?2 (hereinafter, the "Boardman Decl."; attached hereto as Exhibit C).

Plaintiffs also request that the Court approve the proposed notice plan for the Settlements. The proposed notice plan is fair and reasonable and substantially the same as the notice plans previously approved by the Court in connection with the CVI, B&L, and ABB settlements. See ECF No. 1164 (concluding that the notice plan satisfied the "requirements of Rule 23 . . . and the United States Constitution"). Under the notice plan, Settlement Class Members who already made a timely and valid claim in the CVI, B&L, and/or ABB settlements will not need to make a new claim to receive compensation from the Alcon or JJVCI Settlements. See Declaration of Cameron Azari, ?14 (hereinafter, the "Azari Decl."; attached hereto as Exhibit D).

To initiate the settlement approval process, Plaintiffs and Lead Counsel respectfully request that the Court: (1) grant preliminary approval to the Settlements and preliminarily certify the Settlement Classes; (2) approve the proposed Notice Plan, form of Notice, and opt-out and objection procedures; (3) stay the Action against Alcon and JJVCI pending final approval of the Settlements; (4) establish a schedule with deadlines for notice, opting out, objecting, filing claims, and setting a fairness hearing; and (5) enter the [Proposed] Order Preliminarily Approving Class Settlements and Notice Plan, attached hereto as Exhibit E.

2

Case 3:15-md-02626-HES-LLL Document 1337 Filed 04/20/22 Page 8 of 30 PageID 55131

II. STATEMENT OF THE CASE A. Allegations and Defenses Beginning in March of 2015, Plaintiffs filed lawsuits against the four major

manufacturers of disposable contact lenses in the U.S. Alcon, JJVCI, B&L, and CVI (the "Manufacturers") and their primary distributor, ABB, alleging that Defendants illegally restrained competition under Section 1 of the Sherman Act and state unfair competition laws by imposing "Unilateral Pricing Policies" ("UPPs") on certain disposable contact lenses. In June of 2015, the cases were consolidated before this Court by the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. See ECF No. 1.

For the past seven years, this litigation has involved contested questions of law and fact surrounding whether the Manufacturers and ABB illegally restrained competition and whether Plaintiffs had standing to sue for damages. Boardman Decl., ?34.3 Defendants have vigorously denied, and continue to deny, the existence of any conspiracy and contend that their UPPs did not unreasonably restrain competition; and Defendants contest Plaintiffs' standing to sue on a classwide basis. Id. Alcon and JJVCI maintained these defenses throughout the litigation leading up to trial, which was scheduled to commence on March 28, 2022.

3 The Court is familiar with most of the prior proceedings in this case, which were set forth in the motion and declaration supporting preliminary approval of the B&L and ABB settlements. See ECF Nos. 1037, 1037-2, 1145. Rather than repeat such facts, Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the facts regarding the prior litigation history from that declaration.

3

 ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download